(28-10-2015 04:25 PM)MustangManda Wrote: There are still quite a lot of people apparently who don't believe that the plane was enough to bring down those buildings. Good to know your structures professor is actively spreading the word otherwise.

I haven't read through this whole thread, but I have a coworker who brought up a loony theory a couple weeks ago that I hadn't heard yet (although I never paid much attention to the 9/11 conspiracies). My coworker swears that a plane never hit the pentagon, and points to the lack of pictures or videos showing the impact. To give him some credit, the sole video is rather terrible/grainy (due to low refresh rate though) and there aren't many good pictures of the plane itself in the pentagon (there's a couple showing plane parts, easy enough to "fabricate" those I suppose...), but there are literally hundreds of eyewitnesses who say it was indeed a plane, people inside and out of the Pentagon. Apparently there are still people though (at least my coworker) who think the government bombed itself with a Tomahawk missile... sigh. I've been trying to avoid non-work-related conversations with him since then. The frustrating thing though is that he isn't remotely dumb, he's a very intelligent engineer, just an overactive imagination I suppose.

Here is a video of the flight of a jet fighter into a reinforced concrete structure. It was done as a demonstration of the ability of a nuclear power plant containment vessel to survive that sort of attack.

(28-10-2015 04:25 PM)MustangManda Wrote: There are still quite a lot of people apparently who don't believe that the plane was enough to bring down those buildings. Good to know your structures professor is actively spreading the word otherwise.

I haven't read through this whole thread, but I have a coworker who brought up a loony theory a couple weeks ago that I hadn't heard yet (although I never paid much attention to the 9/11 conspiracies). My coworker swears that a plane never hit the pentagon, and points to the lack of pictures or videos showing the impact. To give him some credit, the sole video is rather terrible/grainy (due to low refresh rate though) and there aren't many good pictures of the plane itself in the pentagon (there's a couple showing plane parts, easy enough to "fabricate" those I suppose...), but there are literally hundreds of eyewitnesses who say it was indeed a plane, people inside and out of the Pentagon. Apparently there are still people though (at least my coworker) who think the government bombed itself with a Tomahawk missile... sigh. I've been trying to avoid non-work-related conversations with him since then. The frustrating thing though is that he isn't remotely dumb, he's a very intelligent engineer, just an overactive imagination I suppose.

Here is a video of the flight of a jet fighter into a reinforced concrete structure. It was done as a demonstration of the ability of a nuclear power plant containment vessel to survive that sort of attack.

(28-10-2015 04:30 PM)Chas Wrote: When the floors started pancaking they damaged the structural system so that it was no longer self-supporting.

ROFLMAO

Well it is so curious that the NIST says this:

Quote:NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

Now (Completely talking off the cuff etc) , with no personal knowledge or understanding of things, what I gather is the sagging of the floors due to deformation/heat etc were what 'pulled' the wall/support trusses inwards and hence were the things that kept the whole formation falling straight down.

Dude you have been thoroughly debunked and totally owned on numerous occasions and have constantly refused to answer direct questions about your stance on this issue, also your arguments have been consistently single issue, self righteous condescending and patronising and hugely disrespectful to the victims of this very human tragedy.

You are a joke, a clown who does not listen, stubborn to the point of stupidity and totally divorced from reality and someone for whom it is incredibly difficult to have any respect for. This is why I rip the piss out of you.

Get a life, try to be a little objective ask yourself honestly and with a modicum of humility do you really believe this bullshit conspiracy theory or have you got into a circular argument from which you stubbornly refuse to give up ?

You have been totally owned you lost the argument, you lost it ages ago, give it up and move on man.

(30-10-2015 11:51 AM)adey67 Wrote: You are a joke, a clown who does not listen, stubborn to the point of stupidity and totally divorced from reality and someone for whom it is incredibly difficult to have any respect for. This is why I rip the piss out of you.

Get a life, try to be a little objective ask yourself honestly and with a modicum of humility do you really believe this bullshit conspiracy theory or have you got into a circular argument from which you stubbornly refuse to give up ?

It ain't about conspiracies, it's about physics.

Clowns with degrees can't come up with physical or virtual models in FOURTEEN YEARS and say nothing about having accurate data on steel and concrete distributions down the buildings. Delusional Physics for MORONS!!!

But supposedly climate scientists can make relevant climate models for 100 years into the future. A cubic mile of water weighs how much compared to a WTC tower? Having climate models but not measly skyscraper models is hilariously ironic.

The 9/11 Affair is a planetary joke. All you can do is TALK and try to insult.

Thanks for just confirming everything I just previously wrote
What the weight of a mile of water in a climate model has to do with the twin towers is anyone's guess but it sounds like obfuscation of argument to me. However lets imagine they do all the models you want and the results are the same how would you feel then ? I suspect its not physics you are interested in but rather validation of your beliefs . Also its all about conspiracy because if the planes did not bring down the buildings then something else did and that leaves only the demolition theory in the viewfinder so yes its all about conspiracy theories nice try.